ThePortForum.com

Posted here as this is NOT a serious tasting suggestion.

Here

JacobH wrote:

AHB wrote:!we simply decided that the tasting was already so large and expensive!we would prefer to call upon Jay's generosity at another time - perhaps in a Taylor & Vargellas complete 20th Century Vertical.

Excluding unofficial bottlings, I make that 60 bottles!

Why would we want to exclude unofficial bottlings? Do you have something against the Taylor 1948 or Taylor 1950 Special Quinta bottlings or the Vargellas 1970 bottling?

Alex

AHB wrote:Posted here as this is NOT a serious tasting suggestion.

Here

JacobH wrote:

AHB wrote:!we simply decided that the tasting was already so large and expensive!we would prefer to call upon Jay's generosity at another time - perhaps in a Taylor & Vargellas complete 20th Century Vertical.

Excluding unofficial bottlings, I make that 60 bottles!

Why would we want to exclude unofficial bottlings? Do you have something against the Taylor 1948 or Taylor 1950 Special Quinta bottlings or the Vargellas 1970 bottling?

Alex

But how would we know when we had sourced every unofficial bottle--a necessity to make it ‟complete”? And why stop at 1900? Shouldn’t a vertical of this nature start with the Waterloo vintage?

My UK stocks include 1912 1924 1927 1948 1955 1963 1970 1977 1980 1985 and, though it probably wouldn’t be needed, 1985 in magnum.

This isn’t a serious suggestion for a one-day tasting, of course. We’d need a long weekend.

jdaw1 wrote:though it probably wouldn’t be needed, 1985 in magnum.

A legitimate add-on to this tasting would be magnums v. 75cl v. 37.5cl as many Taylor vintages were bottled in both of those.

And we really ought to compare British v. Oporto bottlings.

JacobH wrote:And we really ought to compare British v. Oporto bottlings.

This is really a separate tasting. There are many UK bottlers, varying from excellent to not so. They can’t be lumped together. I’d much rather work on a couple of vintages, say ’63 and ’70, and two or three wines from each (not necessarily the same), with multiple bottlers.

JacobH wrote:A legitimate add-on to this tasting would be magnums v. 75cl v. 37.5cl as many Taylor vintages were bottled in both of those.

No would make the Taylor vertical too large.

jdaw1 wrote:My UK stocks include 1912 1924 1927 1948 1955 1963 1970 1977 1980 1985 and, though it probably wouldn’t be needed, 1985 in magnum.

This isn’t a serious suggestion for a one-day tasting, of course. We’d need a long weekend.

Yeah that would be a fun weekend....if it ever happens let me know I'd fly out for that one for sure.

Me, too.

Axel

Andy V wrote:Yeah that would be a fun weekend....if it ever happens let me know I'd fly out for that one for sure.

Axel P wrote:Me, too.

What do you two have?

oldest taylors is a 1920 vp

If fourteen of us are sharing sixty bottles each person should provide more than one. What younger Taylor VPs do you have?

I can confirm that I am in for this one, even though we are not supposed to say it will ever happen because AHB says it a serious suggestion.

My collection of Taylor is virtually non-existent.

60 bottles for 14 people over two days is slightly less than the standard vertical of 35 per day.

The non-serious part was that it should be a one-day tasting. AHB needless to say was entirely serious about the idea of a complete Taylor vertical. But not in one session.

jdaw1 wrote:The non-serious part was that it should be a one-day tasting. AHB needless to say was entirely serious about the idea of a complete Taylor vertical. But not in one session.

A complete 20th C. Taylor vertical would be a mere 27 bottles; it’s adding the Vargellas that causes it to be a lunch+dinner prospect...

JacobH wrote:A complete 20th C. Taylor vertical would be a mere 27 bottles; it’s adding the Vargellas that causes it to be a lunch+dinner prospect...

By British standards I might be a light-weight, but I’d rather split twenty-seven bottles into two sessions. For my modest capacity the Vargellas suggested a multi-day tasting.

JacobH wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:The non-serious part was that it should be a one-day tasting. AHB needless to say was entirely serious about the idea of a complete Taylor vertical. But not in one session.

A complete 20th C. Taylor vertical would be a mere 27 bottles; it’s adding the Vargellas that causes it to be a lunch+dinner prospect...

I'm still slightly confused as to why it could not be an 1815-2006(7?) vertical. If we included a Friday afternoon and evening as well as Morning, afternoon and evening on Saturday and Sunday that would give us 8 sessions of 18 bottles = 144. That would allow us to amend the title to a snappier "A Gross of Taylor Vintages"

DRT wrote:I'm still slightly confused as to why it could not be an 1815-2006(7?) vertical. If we included a Friday afternoon and evening as well as Morning, afternoon and evening on Saturday and Sunday that would give us 8 sessions of 18 bottles = 144. That would allow us to amend the title to a snappier "A Gross of Taylor Vintages"

I was simply following the rule of AHB who pronounced it thus. If I were to have a say, I add would released and unreleased Terra Feita vintages, which I think are somewhat undervalued.

DRT wrote:A Gross of Taylor Vintages

I’m in.

I like...we could do the VP on one day and the Vargellas on another

That seems to be 3 confirmed attendees and a 144 bottle line-up.

Does that constitute a quorum?

It seems we need to identify a few more vintages. Here are those that I currently have at least some tenuous evidence of existence:

1. Taylor 1863
2. Taylor 1870
3. Taylor 1872
4. Taylor 1873
5. Taylor 1875
6. Taylor 1878
7. Taylor 1880
8. Taylor 1881
9. Taylor 1884
10. Taylor 1887
11. Taylor 1890
12. Taylor 1892
13. Taylor 1895
14. Taylor 1896
15. Taylor 1900
16. Taylor 1904
17. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1905
18. Taylor 1906
19. Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita 1907
20. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1907
21. Taylor 1908
22. Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita 1911
23. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1911
24. Taylor 1912
25. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1912
26. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1914
27. Taylor 1917
28. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1917
29. Taylor 1920
30. Taylor 1922
31. Taylor 1924
32. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1925
33. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1926
34. Taylor 1927
35. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1930
36. Taylor 1931
37. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1934
38. Taylor 1935
39. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1937
40. Taylor 1938
41. Taylor 1940
42. Taylor 1942
43. Taylor 1945
44. Taylor Special Quinta 1947
45. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1947
46. Taylor 1948
47. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1948
48. Taylor 1950
49. Taylor Special Quinta 1950
50. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1952
51. Taylor 1955
52. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1957
53. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1958
54. Taylor 1960
55. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1961
56. Taylor 1963
57. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1964
58. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1965
59. Taylor 1966
60. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1967
61. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1968
62. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1969
63. Taylor 1970
64. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1970
65. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1972
66. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1974
67. Taylor 1975
68. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1976
69. Taylor 1977
70. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1978
71. Taylor 1980
72. Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita 1982
73. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1982
74. Taylor 1983
75. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1984
76. Taylor 1985
77. Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita 1986
78. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1986
79. Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita 1987
80. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
81. Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita 1988
82. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1988
83. Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita 1991
84. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1991
85. Taylor 1992
86. Taylor 1994
87. Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita 1995
88. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1995
89. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas Vinha Velha 1995
90. Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita 1996
91. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1996
92. Taylor 1997
93. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas Vinha Velha 1997
94. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1998
95. Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita 1999
96. Taylor 2000
97. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas Vinha Velha 2000
98. Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita 2001
99. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 2001
100. Taylor 2003
101. Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita 2004
102. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 2004
103. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas Vinha Velha 2004
104. Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita 2005
105. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 2005
106. Taylor Quinta de Vargellas Vinha Velha 2006

DRT wrote:That seems to be 3 confirmed attendees and a 144 bottle line-up.

Does that constitute a quorum?

Article Sixteen of The Constitution of The Cambridge University Tiddlywinks Club wrote:A quorum shall be the number present.

And then we was robbed! Only 106 Taylors. We will need that magnum of 1985.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:That seems to be 3 confirmed attendees and a 144 bottle line-up.

Does that constitute a quorum?

Article Sixteen of The Constitution of The Cambridge University Tiddlywinks Club wrote:A quorum shall be the number present.

Quorate. Agreed.

jdaw1 wrote:And then we was robbed! Only 106 Taylors. We will need that magnum of 1985.

Fear not. The list of 1800's wines is not yet complete. We should have no trouble making 144 and may even be able to weed out some weaklings. 1975?

Is it time to move this to the appropriate section of the forum?

Even if we have the ‘small’ list of 106 Taylors, we can still lose the 1975.

DRT wrote:Is it time to move this to the appropriate section of the forum?

Organising Tastings and Get-togethers? I had forgotten that it wasn’t there. Sure.

jdaw1 wrote:Even if we have the ‘small’ list of 106 Taylors, we can still lose the 1975.

Perhaps we include it so that we can rinse the decanters?

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:Is it time to move this to the appropriate section of the forum?

Organising Tastings and Get-togethers? I had forgotten that it wasn’t there. Sure.

I think we should allow the thread initiator 24 hours to object.

DRT wrote:I think we should allow the thread initiator 24 hours to object.

No no no. He might object and then where would we be?

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:I think we should allow the thread initiator 24 hours to object.

No no no. He might object and then where would we be?

Feel free to act. I'm off to bed in the knowledge that we are one bottle closer to running out of Morgan 91.

jdaw1 wrote:Even if we have the ‘small’ list of 106 Taylors, we can still lose the 1975.

If I'm going to be there (which I just may consider for this humble tasting) the 1975 will have to be 'in'.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:That seems to be 3 confirmed attendees and a 144 bottle line-up.

Does that constitute a quorum?

Article Sixteen of The Constitution of The Cambridge University Tiddlywinks Club wrote:A quorum shall be the number present.

And then we was robbed! Only 106 Taylors. We will need that magnum of 1985.

Please explain the term "amigos" and who may hold status "mother superior" as you use it?! ( As referenced in your constitution)

An ‘amigos’ is a down-in-one, with obvious meaning of the verb form.

And I don’t think that Article Thirty-two has yet been tested in court.

Any thoughts about placemat design? This is the best I can do without my computer melting down whilst trying to generate the PDF, but it would require an A2 printer!

benread wrote:
Please explain the term "amigos" and who may hold status "mother superior" as you use it?! ( As referenced in your constitution)

Come to Los Angeles and everyone will be your "amigo" and will give you a "mother superior" while releaving you of your wallet while pointing a "saturday night special" at you

Placemats: use the GlassesOnSheets parameter to split the glasses over many A4 pages.

jdaw1 wrote:Placemats: use the GlassesOnSheets parameter to split the glasses over many A4 pages.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t generate the contents of that parameter with a single regex, so I took the path of least resistance and substituted 2 for 4 in the /PaperType parameter

Incidentally, there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent function to split the tasting notes over more than one sheet!

JacobH wrote:Incidentally, there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent function to split the tasting notes over more than one sheet!

(Which, for clarity’s sake, I do not consider to be a serious flaw in the software )

JacobH wrote:Incidentally, there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent function to split the tasting notes over more than one sheet!

What about GlassesOnTastingNotePages?

I am definitely in on this one. Who is wearing the organisational hat? We definitely need a frame for this tasting. I am fully open to everything involved though not being able to contribute anything else than some connections to the house and all the following VPs.

T: 83, 85,92, 94, 97, 00 full and Mg., 03 half and full
T V V: 00
T TF: 88, 99, 05
T V: 91 Half and Full, 95, 96, 05

I suppose we keep it on our side of the ocean???


Axel

The vintages I listed above are located in the UK. Yes, this is a UK-located tasting.

If this is turning into a serious attempt at organising a non-serious Taylor vertical, perhaps the non-serious attempt at organising a serious vertical ought to be split somewhere more appropriate?

On the serious point, is it worth baring in mind that there’s a Vargellas vertical in March and the ‟square” tasting in November, both of which might write-off quite a lot of mature Taylor bottles?

jdaw1 wrote:

JacobH wrote:Incidentally, there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent function to split the tasting notes over more than one sheet!

What about GlassesOnTastingNotePages?

Hmm!hadn’t explored that one (and I’m afraid I can’t quite work out how that parameter works)!but glad to see that all eventualities are catered for!

JacobH wrote:If this is turning into a serious attempt at organising a non-serious Taylor vertical, perhaps the non-serious attempt at organising a serious vertical ought to be split somewhere more appropriate?

On the serious point, is it worth baring in mind that there’s a Vargellas vertical in March and the ‟square” tasting in November, both of which might write-off quite a lot of mature Taylor bottles?

See A Taylor vertical, quite large.

This thread moved to Meaningless Drivel. Silliness in this thread thereby encouraged. But in the A Taylor vertical, quite large thread, strongly discouraged.